I Love The Onion

Because it runs stories like this:

Reynolds, like all infants when they reach the ages between 2 and 10 months old, was intent on determining his sexual orientation, emphasizing that his decision was “just a lifestyle choice and nothing more.” While every baby reportedly makes a commitment to being heterosexual, homosexual, or transgender, Reynolds revealed that each infant has different reasons for their decision, explaining that gay felt like a good fit for his personality and disposition.

“My selection of a sexual preference was the product of a great deal of self-reflection,” said the newly homosexual infant, who added that he reached his decision completely on his own and was not influenced by his genetic makeup or any circumstances beyond his control. “If my sexuality means I get bullied at school, or that I end up feeling unloved and shunned for my entire life, or that I don’t receive equal protection under the law, then obviously that will be my own fault.”

Reynolds reportedly acknowledged that heterosexuality would have had some benefits, such as the universal right to marriage, the ability to adopt children without fear of scrutiny, and the feeling of being validated by his religion. However, the 16-week-old infant said that, in the end, he had decided to identify with a small minority that lacks many basic rights.

“Who knows? Maybe I’ll even change my mind at some point,” said Reynolds, explaining that he can, at any time, freely choose whom he is attracted to. “If I wake up one day and don’t want to be gay anymore, then I can just switch to being heterosexual, easy as that.”

“After all, it’s not like I’m stuck with this decision for the rest of my life,” Reynolds added.

Via Box Turtle Bulletin.

Pride and Prejudice

No, it's not about the Bush administration, at least on the face of it. I'm reading the Austen novel, which I don't recall ever having read before (although there are story line echoes that make me wonder if maybe I haven't). It's marvelous -- laugh-out-loud funny in places, particularly in Mr Bennet's reactions to his familly, particularly his wife.

One one level, it's about looking at evidence, realizing you could have been wrong in your assumptions, and changing your mind. On that score, Elizabeth Bennet would have made a better president than George W. Bush.

It's also a terrific read. Drawing close to the end now, and I can't believe the amount of dramatic tension that Austen was able to build into a comedy of manners. It's no wonder that in my younger days I stayed up all night reading Emma.

Alternate Realities

One really has to wonder. I find it hard to believe something like this isn't satire.




Thanks to Digby. Digby's quote is from Grover Norquist, another one of those people who's never held office but seems to have had a lot to do with running the country under the Republicans. That in itself is sort of an interesting phenomenon, especially when one considers how much influence the actual elected Republican leadership in Congress had on policy decisions -- compared to the likes of, say, Norquist, Dobson, Wildmon, General Electric, Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, and so forth. I'd like to be able to say "those days are behind us," but I don't believe it. I think it will just be less blatant.

Kill Muslim Children

Atrios directed me to this piece by Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon, which is a diatribe against Captain Ed for this piece about some of the fallout from this piece, originally at IMAO (whatever that is) and reposted at Right Wing Howler (which has since been shut down after a complaint by CAIR). Atrios' comment was unthinking, at best, and I expect better from him.

OK -- there's something about pots and kettles here.

The original piece is funny, in the best tradition of The Onion. (Well, maybe not the best -- The Onion's best pieces tend to be their really short ones, but this is certainly in the running.) Right Wing Howler reran it and lost their hosting after CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) complained about "hate sites." Now, CAIR is an advocacy group -- what politicians like to call "special interests" when they're referring to someone else's advocacy groups. Of course they don't want Muslims or Arabs to be the subject of satire. (F course, if you read the piece, it's obviously satire, Muslims are obviously not the target, and everyone -- CAIR, Marcotte, and Atrios -- completely missed the point.) Captain Ed's commentary seems perfectly reasonable to me, and on that basis I found Marcotte's diatribe very instructive. (I've only just started reading Captain's Quarters, and I don't agree with him on everything -- surprise! -- but he seems to be not only rational, but in fairly good contact with reality, unlike our friends at GayPatriot.)

To say that I didn't find Marcotte persuasive is sadly understating the case. "Brainless" works. Why on earth would anyone attack a commentator for referring to Jonathan Swift, with the main theme, apparently, that "how dare he do that when he obviously doesn't understand Swift," when he quite obviously does understand the application of Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in this case? The only thing I saw in Marcotte's post is that she is having a PC moment and is desperately trying to find a justification for it -- and failing miserably.

In fact, after reading her post a couple of times, I'm still not sure what the point is. I'm not sure there is a point -- unless it's to demonstrate that the left can be just as lacking in humor as it claims the right is.

Just another reminder of why I have no patience with the thought police at either end of the spectrum.

Don't take my word for it -- read the stuff yourself. The links are all there. See if you don't think Marcotte's piece is bullshit. It's the sort of thing that gives liberals a bad name.